netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?

To: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: on the wire behaviour of TSO on/off is supposed to be the same yes?
From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:36:18 -0800
In-reply-to: <20050127165707.250ee514.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <41F1516D.5010101@hp.com> <200501211358.53783.jdmason@us.ibm.com> <41F163AD.5070400@hp.com> <20050121124441.76cbbfb9.davem@davemloft.net> <41F17B7E.2020002@hp.com> <20050121141820.7d59a2d1.davem@davemloft.net> <41F186A8.9030805@hp.com> <20050121204948.034b2510.davem@davemloft.net> <41F55B93.6040603@hp.com> <20050124124353.2f760e1a.davem@davemloft.net> <41F98306.6070804@hp.com> <20050127165707.250ee514.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041206
David S. Miller wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:10:46 -0800
Rick Jones <rick.jones2@xxxxxx> wrote:



The other relates to the business of disabling TSO on a connection upon packet loss.


There cannot possibly any compliance issues resulting from turning
off an optimization in the face of packet loss.

I was a bit vague - compliance with the benchmark run and report rules, not with RFC's.


Internet connected systems experience non-trivial packet loss rates and so if TSO disabled upon packet loss it means a given benchmark result using TSO deviates even more from reality than one without TSO.


And running the benchmark over a local gigabit subnet doesn't deviate
from what Internet connected systems can expect to achieve how-so?

Benchmarking, not logic...

Oh you mean I really can get 60,000 web or database connections a second
when the users are over modems half-way across the planet?  Give me a
break...

If there are enough users :)

Anyways, see my other posting, we'll be able to keep TSO enabled in
the face of packet loss, but that is an optimization not a correctness
fix.

Cool.

rick jones



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>